Morning. Coffee good. Buford goes to the vet for his bordetello booster and my brother and his wife are coming out for a visit in February. Fun. Still have no idea where we will be next…sigh..
These are jobs lost as a direct result of federal regulation. I know it’s not thousands of jobs, or even hundreds, but the pain will be felt in every home where the breadwinner finds him/herself in the “bread line.”
In brief, Forrest Carter was a failed segregationist politician named Asa Carter, a speechwriter for George Wallace, who reinvented himself as a “Cherokee Story Teller” and made himself a nice chunk of change.
Since it is all quiet on the Western Front today I will start a fight.
I’ve decided to vote for Ron Paul.
Yes, I know his foreign policy is not just a disaster, but an effin’ disaster – but I know none of it will ever make through Congress and neither would his military cuts. I figure with the other GOP candidates; Mitt (too weak), Newt (who reminds me a bit of Invader Zim), and Santorum (who’d let the whole country go bankrupt so long as he could keep guys from kissing each other) their foreign policy will simply be a continuation of existing foreign policy which is also a disaster – but their domestic policy is also a disaster. Ron Paul’s domestic policy is largely right on target.
He is the only chance we’ve got at breaking the status quo. The R’s and D’s in Washington are doing far more damage to us on a daily basis than Al Qaeda could ever dream of and not only are we not fighting back we continue to mindlessly vote them in. A third party would never work because it would just split the vote, but what would work is helping Libertarians overthrow the GOP and make the party back into what Jefferson had originally created. We HAVE to do away with business as usual and break the back of the establishment, unfortunately they’ve been allowed to make their own rules and rig the game for so long that it won’t be easy.
I don’t think Paul will win the primary, though I strangely think he could win in a general election due to his ability to take the youth vote from Obama, but I do want to help him make enough noise that other Libertarians see the GOP as a place where they can win. Maybe 4 years from now Rand jumps in the ring. Maybe Libertarians start winning in GOP primaries for the Senate. Who knows.
The main flaw in your thinking is that foreign policy is exactly the main area where a President Paul could do the MOST damage — and tout de suite. POTUS needs funding to do whatever he deems our foreign policy to be. A President Paul would be nearly free to withdraw troops willy nilly, abandon Israel, etc. He wouldn’t need congressional oversight because he would be withdrawing troops and other assets left and right — and quick. He could do that as quickly as February 2013 conceivably (logistics being the main impediment).
His Libertarian domestic policy would be the most difficult thing for him to bring about because Congress would have to pass legislation.
President Ron Paul would help usher in World War III — just as isolationists in the 1930s did with WW2.
There’s an argument for a draw down in Europe to be sure.
South Korea? Two words: North Korea. If we want to encourage South Korea to arm itself to be strong enough to withstand North Korea and China, etc. then as long as we are prepared to pay the higher cost in goods that would eventually entail then fine. But I don’t hear Paul ever really address the mass death his foreign policy would result in and the exponential higher cost of and lower stand of living his ostrich-like isolationism would usher in.
While I don’t buy into a Hobbesian view of the world necessarily I do know what happens to most parties who stick their heads in the sand and the asses in the air. Ostriches are punks.
All of what troops in Europe and Korea? The statement causes one to envision legions of forces arrayed and ready for battle. In the current plan there will be two BCTs in Europe (about half a Division) and last I looked there were maybe three Brigades in Korea (again not a full strength division) these are place holders or speed bumps…whatever terminology you’d like to use.
I would buy moving the forces in Europe to Poland as they actually like us and want us there…so we’d get a deal on the bases and lots of good training areas.
Withdrawing into CONUS and hoping everyone will play nice is the most naive and stupid thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Unless the USA folds up the tent and calls it a day we will ALWAYS be looked upon to be a leader and protector of the free.
How far we’ve come from “bare any burden, pay any price…”
WW3 is inevitable under current foreign policy as well. Right now we are so weak and limp wristed that we might as well be isolationist. Actually what we are now is worse than isolationist I believe, we are slaves to a corrupt do nothing UN and afraid of our own shadow.
On the Israel front…I got to say I think the best thing that could happen to them is us get out of the way. Think about it. The only thing that has stopped Israel from kicking the dog crap out of Iran and their cohorts is us. We’re the leash around their neck. I just don’t view this as much of a factor since their enemies don’t fear us anyway, we really aren’t doing Israel any favors but are doing them some harm.
Point being we would be exchanging crap, damaging foreign policy for crap, damaging foreign policy. Its an even trade. However we would have a significant upgrade in domestic policy and as it stands now if we don’t get our own house in order than our foreign policy won’t matter anyway.
Not asking if they would be succesful but what would your answer here be:
Do you honestly believe Newt or Mitt will tackle any real issues or attempt real reform?
Do you believe Ron Paul would tackle any real issues or attempt any real reform?
It is my belief Paul is the only one with the cojones to actually try and fix things and not just pay them lip service. I just can’t make myself vote for more of the same anymore. The futility of it all exhaust me.
Dr. Paul is an anti-semitic Wilsonian Progressive piece of garbage who should have been shamed out of public office decades ago. This whole “he’s a reformer” crap can be stacked against his very lengthy record of feeding at the Federal trough, and the “he’s got the Youth vote” crap is just as illusory as the smoke dragons said voting block see when they pass the bong around. It is hard to avoid casting aspersions here, but anyone who seriously considers voting for this douchebag is someone whom I do not take serious as an informed voter. I am all for blowing up the GOP establishment, but this particular petard would indeed hoist us all.
Assuming that Dr. Paul is a sane rational individual, which based on the evidence I have seen is debatable he makes excellent points about getting the budget under control. Unfortunately his attitude about foreign policy is to be charitable…INSANE.
If the rest of the world is aflame we are in the hurt locker as well. Unfortunately these aren’t the 1800′s and we are invested and involved in the world economy and require a stable world to prosper ourselves. Not to mention that troubles around the world cause a lot of people to seek refuge in America. It’s nice to say we shouldn’t have done this or that 30-40 years ago…but that is a moot argument. Fact of the matter is we did do things and we have a resposibility to follow through on promises made. That is unless you don’t care about crap like that.
Additionally social programs are the problem with the federal budget, not foreign aid, not the defense budget…its MEDICADE, SS and WELFARE. Why can’t people get this through their heads?
I will make no such assumptions, as the adage “even a stopped clock is right twice a day” come to mind. There are plenty of people in asylums who can be perfectly lucid and insightful on any given topic…but since they are batshit insane we don’t give them leave to go. Would that Dr. Paul could join them.
There may be fat in the military that could be trimmed, but it for damn sure isn’t to be found in our combat forces and equipment! We go through this every generation—we neuter our military and have to play catch-up when the next inevitable domino falls.
Mitt or Newt might continue our slow decline but Ron Paul will, with his foreign policy, not only accelerate it but probably cause World War 3.
When I hear Ron Paul spouting Foreign Policy I am reminded of what a line for the Fellowship of the Ring by an elf that Frodo and Sam came across: “You can fence yourselves in but you cannot fence the world out.”
So you’re planning to abandon the GOP’s candidate and vote for the third-party radical instead. Because that worked out so well for us in ’92, didn’t it?
He is a game changer Scott… a loser. Anyone wanting to ensure American decline in the near future (and maybe into the long term) can do one of three things… vote for Obama, vote for Ron Paul, or not vote in the Fall election who might otherwise vote for the GOP.
Hardly. He’s vastly different from Obama. Doing things on a state level is not anywhere near the same thing as stretching that over 50 states. It’s called federalism… and Romney believes in it so far as I can tell.
And at the very least, he has an actual career, his own business and a governship under his belt. A wealth of experience compared to what we currently have.
And a side note to Stephanie… please notice how Scott and I have a back and forth without name calling…. it’s called civilized debate… you should try it.
Floyd what concerns me most about Mitt and Newt is not just that I don’t hear them putting forward solutions to problems, they aren’t even talking about the problems. The political class is like a drunk refusing to admit their is a problem – step one is denail. Paul and Perry were the only two calling Social Security what it is and of course Perry is out. Everyone else seems to still be under the impression that everything is fine and we can just kick the can down the road a while longer but we’re $15 trillion in debt and the GOP is letting Obama sucker them into this class warfare crap rather than address the issues.
Even if Paul can’t change the game, he can at least start the conversation about changing the rules.
Veruckt… I agree re Social Security… but when World War 3 starts Social Security will be a true backburner issue. I believe Ron Paul’s foreign policy will speed up the process towards a World War.
Libertarianism is a utopian vision. Most, if not all, utopianism is dangerous in addition to being unrealistic.
And before Scott sets in (:-) ) — orthodox Christianity is NOT utopian because it doesn’t largely teach the perfectibility of mankind or that Heaven is earthly (there are exceptions of course)/
Any philosophy taken to an extreme is utopian, unrealistic, and dangerous. Assigning that notion to Libertarianism as though it is somehow unique in that is misleading.
Paul is definitely not my ideal candidate and frankly isn’t Presidential material. The only one who is Presidential material is Mitt. Take a look at my original post and see what I few Paul as – he is the guy who will open the door for other Libertarians in the future. I think Rand will succeed where his father failed. Rand is a Libertarian but his views are tempered with realism.
I’ll take you to task for one thing you said earlier,Floyd.How did “isolationism” cause the Second World War? I was under the impression that Germany started that…should we have had hundreds of thousands of Americans troops posted in Europe in the ’30s?
He may be referring to the nations tearing Germany down and then just folding up shop and heading home. The isolationism did cause us as well as the League of Nations to ignore Germany’s repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles which of course allowed Germany to rebuild their military.
“Cause” was an overstatement on my part, but it was clearly a part. Refusal to do anything about Hitler’s aggressive moves in the late 1930s clearly emboldened him and had dire consequences.
If one sees a man being attacked and refuses to help him then he “causes” in some part his ultimate demise. That’s a pretty ancient principle.
Actually “cause” is the appropriate word, I don’t ever really hear this said much about the consequences of Paul’s foreign policy but the reason we have troops here and there, including Europe is reach. We don’t know where trouble might brew, so you have to have some forward bases to get a jump on any issue.
Most importantly, the US military protects worldwide trade. Even the threat of military action can prevent a country from taking military action against trade routes, which was very common before the age of Americanism. Hence, the lack of that stabilizing power “caused” world wars in the sense that no one was there to help prevent them. If we follow Paul’s foreign policy, the ability to trade and have economic partnerships will lessen and when two countries come into conflict, without economic pressure to bring to bear, their only choice will be violence.
I know people generally think of sanctions as rather meek responses but it is an alternative to military action. The US, despite how our enemies try to make us look weak and stupid, protects some of the most important ground in the history of mankind, the middle ground. We have ultimately acted against our own short term interests for the long term dividends of peaceful economic activity. Without our military’s presence to safeguard this neutral territory (or worse a power such as China who has no inclination to protect anything but its own interests steps in) the available options for countries to deal peaceably with one another are drastically reduced.
This is what “caused” WW1 and 2 and pretty much every major conflict in the world. I sympathize greatly with libertarians on domestic issues and understand why they think the way they do about foreign policy, but they are wrong. Period.
He said “helped cause” not caused. Selective reading, almost the same as the people who want to say that the US caused the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor because we put an embargo on them when they invaded China.
Scott, (& Veruckt) you need to watch Capra’s Why We Fight Series Prelude to War It is pro-democratic propaganda, dated and defferential to our allies at the time, but it is dead on about isolationism. World War II began September 19, 1931, with Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. Nobody wanted to go to war to stop it, but if they had, then World War II would have been far smaller and shorter.
Don’t misunderstand me Goatherd. I know isolationism is stupid and simply will not work in a modern world. I detest Paul’s foreign policy. To me he is a means to an end – I know he will not win the primary but I am hoping a strong performance from him will show other would be Libertarian politicians that they can win in the GOP. My ultimate hope is that Libertarians will push out the old guard Republicans and our nation will finally have a fighting chance at addressing real issues.
I know you’re laying down a sacrifice, in the hope, it will advance the cause. Noble thought. We, conservative republicians also wish to drive out the old guard. Obama’s 100 MPH or McCain’s 50 MPH over the cliff wasn’t much of a choice. Where’s Reagan when we need him, again? Who of the four is most like Ronald Reagan?
Most like Reagan. Geez. None of the above. Mitt is too weak and would bend in a slight breeze, Newt is too much a politician and completely not trust worthy, Santorum is too concerned with social issues as opposed to things the government actually should be involved in, and Paul’s foreign policy is the opposite of Reagan’s. Reagan was a master at foreign policy. See, Reagan was the kind of Libertarian I think a strong performance from Paul opens the door for again…and yes Reagan was an admitted Libertarian just not a zealot like Ron Paul. I see a lot of Reagan in Rand Paul though.
I don’t see the libertarian in Reagan, that you do. To me, he was a conservative in that he thought the constitution meant what it plainly says. There was a war on drugs and alot of extra-constitutional activities going on, but the man spoke well on his principles, even when not always meeting them. I’m still leaning Newt 1, Santorum 2, Romney 3, Paul 4.
People beliefs in what Libertarians are is part of the issue. We have a branding issue, if you will. The majority of us are extremely well reasoned and know how to balance our beliefs against the weight of reality (Rufus and I being two examples on the boards here). However the thing most associate us with is the fringe, borderline anarchist sect of Libertarianism. This would be your isolationist, people who want all drugs legalized, etc. True Libertarians beliefs are simple – the government should not be involved in anything beyond it’s Constitutionally delegated powers. This is the same thing Conservatives say as well but they are often selective in this and make lots of exceptions by delving into moral policing and feels good policies to “help” the poor etc (these policies usually just shackle them).
Reagan was a true Libertarian in that he opposed social (in)security, Medicare, unemplyoment insurance, etc. You are considered a pariah among Conservatives to speak against these things because they are feel good policies.
Provoked by FDR? Unrestricted submarine warfare had been outlawed by the London Naval Treaty signed on April 22, 1930. Unrestricted submarine warfare is a type of naval warfare in which submarines sink merchantmen without warning, as opposed to attacks per prize rules (commonly known as “cruiser rules”). Cruiser rules demand submarines surface and search merchantmen, and place crews in “a place of safety” (for which lifeboats did not qualify, except under particular circumstances) before sinking them, unless the ship showed “persistent refusal to stop…or active resistance to visit or search”. Germany was not even permitted to have submarines by the treaty of Versilles. FDR’s shoot on sight order in April 1941 was in response to numerous sinkings of american flagged vessels.
I suppose it depends on what kind of rules you are talking about. As someone who was a professional Soldier, the rules we put in place are to separate us from the animals we fight…they actually make our job easier in some respects. Although like most things they can be carried too far.
If you are talking about the rules prior to WWII regulating the sizes of ships navies, etc…yeah pretty naive.
Agreed, but nothing bothers me more than the hand wringing on our side when one of own goes a little too far. Like urinating on the dead enemy, yes bad taste. Does anyone remember the contractors killed in Iraq, their bodies burned and hung up on a bridge as trophies? If I was Bush then, I would have had the air force buzz that place every hour on the hour as loud as possible, with a sonic boom on the first pass, breaking every window in that crap hole. A little tit for tat sends a clear message to the enemy.
You assume that everyone there is an enemy. If you do what you propose everyone soon would be. What feels good, is not always the best course of action.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but if you’ll excuse the expression it pisses me off when Marines desecrate the dead because they know it’s wrong and they cant control themselves enough not to do it. It’s not OK…using the excuse that our enemies are animals and are doing it, is not valid. That excuse didn’t work when you were in school and all your friends were doing something stupid, why is that excuse any better when applied to this?
No assumption. We can drop leaflets explaining it if you like. “The enemy in your midst has murdered unarmed civilian contractors and desecrated their bodies. Our response is to instill fear into our shared enemy, rest assured, we will kill those who did this. Join us in driving out and destroying the cowardly murders from your home. When justice is served, we will reward our friends. George Bush”
You do know that we went in there eventually and virtually destroyed that city, right? I know because I was there. It may not have happened in a time-line that suited most of us, but I can assure you it most definitely happened.
My point was the emotional response that most of us on the INTERNET crave and call for is sometimes counterproductive to the overall effort. As much as it would make everyone feel great that we went in there and got those bastaards, THAT is precisely the response that the people who did it want to provoke.
What eventually turned the tide in Iraq wasn’t us killing all the bad guys it was Iraqis deciding they they would rather fight with us against the bad guys. It was the kind of thing that you proposed that made it take longer, and gave AQI ammo in their fight to the the Iraqis on their side. This kind of war isn’t particularly easy.
And I’m glad we did what we did. If I was Bush at the time, I would have talked out of my response by my military advisors and we would have done what was done. Still, there is something emotionally satisfying about sonic booms over that hell hole. S, pardon my fantasy.
And you’re right about the marines doing it, shows poor judgement doing it. And it shows pure idiocy videoing the act, as well, it shows no discernment what so ever uploadinging it to youtube. Deserve what they get!
I think Veruckt’s description of Santorum is way off base, I would happily pull the lever for him. Maryland’s primary isn’t until April 3rd so I doubt the contest will still be ongoing. That said, I just don’t see Santorum as having a realistic chance, so I’m leaning Gingrich right now.
And to Ron Paul: “How will you deal with Somalian Piracy?”
Minor foreign policy issue in the grand scheme of things but his answer would say loads about him.
Dr. Paul would tell you that its the Mexicans problem and if we legalized the stuff all the scrapping and fighting would stop because there wouldn’t be so much money in it.
Newt would say we have to help our neighbors south of the border in some sort of non commital answer. Mitt would tell us how he visited there while doing his Mormon mission.
There, saved you the trouble of having to watch a debate or anything like it.
IMO we need to help the Mexicans however we can to get this violence under control. There was a precedent set for going in there preemptively back around the turn of the previous century…but none of the current players D or R would have the cajones to do that. Personally I think that is the only way any of that mess will ever get cleared up.
He deserves to be left out. I know I seem down on Santorum but to me he is the male Michelle Bachman. He is someone trying to capitalize on the emotions of the Tea Party. He spends more time blurting out things like “I’m a true Conservative” than he does putting forth any kind of substance. It drives me nuts when the candidates get into a pissing contest over who is more Conservative without actually telling us anything they would do differently. Its a childish sort of oneupmanship.
V, did you catch any of the earlier debates? It seems to me there was more substance in the early ones. The latest ones have been too much about how my friend so and so is not good because blah blah. Which is where Bachman went and stayed. Santorum may be good, but I’m having a hard time with his presentation, he strikes me as a boy scout. Idealism untested in the real world. If he just had a scar, or something, I could dismiss the goody-two-shoes presentation.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
Where is everybody? I’m done with my first cup of coffee, and about to go back for another! -fritz-! Is the bacon done?
Jawohl! Pig till it’s coming out your ears! Oh, you weren’t discussing the DNC. Bacon, yes of course.
Morning. Coffee good. Buford goes to the vet for his bordetello booster and my brother and his wife are coming out for a visit in February. Fun. Still have no idea where we will be next…sigh..
Happy Birthday,Wolfie!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikQNFqVkNNc
Ohio regulators doing Obama’s work: http://z6.co.uk/regulatorssuck
It’s not as if the regulators don’t have enough to do: http://z6.co.uk/jobslost
These are jobs lost as a direct result of federal regulation. I know it’s not thousands of jobs, or even hundreds, but the pain will be felt in every home where the breadwinner finds him/herself in the “bread line.”
Also born on this day,the father of tea parties,Lewis Carroll…
http://djelibeibi.unex.es/libros/Tenniel/Alice-25.jpg
Alice looks ticked!
Alice has a reason Fritz.
Dig in,Maggie!
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/dehooks/dehooks1107/dehooks110700009/10039043-big-country-breakfast-with-scrambled-eggs-bacon-sausage-buttermilk-biscuits-and-coffee–salt-and-pep.jpg
A king’s breakfast! Wait . . .what? No gravy??
Happy Birthday,sweet Margo Timmons!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zufpr8BwY9U
No pleasing Schultze,is there,Fritze…
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Biscuits-and-gravy.jpg
I suppose not, but that does look good!
I apologize for my impatience, gentlemen; but, breakfast brings out the “pig” in me. Get it? Huh, huh??
Er, um…yes!
Richard Wagner,Overture to Die Meistersinger von Nurnburg:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Zcxx7fNqIs
The Josey Wales books. I love the Clint Eastwood movie (there was a film of the sequel too, but I don’t think anyone’s ever seen it).
Have I bored you guys with the true story of the author, Forrest Carter? It’s here: http://www.salon.com/2001/12/20/carter_6/
In brief, Forrest Carter was a failed segregationist politician named Asa Carter, a speechwriter for George Wallace, who reinvented himself as a “Cherokee Story Teller” and made himself a nice chunk of change.
I still love the movie, though.
Since it is all quiet on the Western Front today I will start a fight.
I’ve decided to vote for Ron Paul.
Yes, I know his foreign policy is not just a disaster, but an effin’ disaster – but I know none of it will ever make through Congress and neither would his military cuts. I figure with the other GOP candidates; Mitt (too weak), Newt (who reminds me a bit of Invader Zim), and Santorum (who’d let the whole country go bankrupt so long as he could keep guys from kissing each other) their foreign policy will simply be a continuation of existing foreign policy which is also a disaster – but their domestic policy is also a disaster. Ron Paul’s domestic policy is largely right on target.
He is the only chance we’ve got at breaking the status quo. The R’s and D’s in Washington are doing far more damage to us on a daily basis than Al Qaeda could ever dream of and not only are we not fighting back we continue to mindlessly vote them in. A third party would never work because it would just split the vote, but what would work is helping Libertarians overthrow the GOP and make the party back into what Jefferson had originally created. We HAVE to do away with business as usual and break the back of the establishment, unfortunately they’ve been allowed to make their own rules and rig the game for so long that it won’t be easy.
I don’t think Paul will win the primary, though I strangely think he could win in a general election due to his ability to take the youth vote from Obama, but I do want to help him make enough noise that other Libertarians see the GOP as a place where they can win. Maybe 4 years from now Rand jumps in the ring. Maybe Libertarians start winning in GOP primaries for the Senate. Who knows.
Okay…you may now start yelling at me.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You may be right, but I’d hate to see it come to that.
The main flaw in your thinking is that foreign policy is exactly the main area where a President Paul could do the MOST damage — and tout de suite. POTUS needs funding to do whatever he deems our foreign policy to be. A President Paul would be nearly free to withdraw troops willy nilly, abandon Israel, etc. He wouldn’t need congressional oversight because he would be withdrawing troops and other assets left and right — and quick. He could do that as quickly as February 2013 conceivably (logistics being the main impediment).
His Libertarian domestic policy would be the most difficult thing for him to bring about because Congress would have to pass legislation.
President Ron Paul would help usher in World War III — just as isolationists in the 1930s did with WW2.
Why all of those troops in Korea and Europe,Floyd?
There’s an argument for a draw down in Europe to be sure.
South Korea? Two words: North Korea. If we want to encourage South Korea to arm itself to be strong enough to withstand North Korea and China, etc. then as long as we are prepared to pay the higher cost in goods that would eventually entail then fine. But I don’t hear Paul ever really address the mass death his foreign policy would result in and the exponential higher cost of and lower stand of living his ostrich-like isolationism would usher in.
While I don’t buy into a Hobbesian view of the world necessarily I do know what happens to most parties who stick their heads in the sand and the asses in the air. Ostriches are punks.
All of what troops in Europe and Korea? The statement causes one to envision legions of forces arrayed and ready for battle. In the current plan there will be two BCTs in Europe (about half a Division) and last I looked there were maybe three Brigades in Korea (again not a full strength division) these are place holders or speed bumps…whatever terminology you’d like to use.
I would buy moving the forces in Europe to Poland as they actually like us and want us there…so we’d get a deal on the bases and lots of good training areas.
Withdrawing into CONUS and hoping everyone will play nice is the most naive and stupid thing I’ve ever heard in my life. Unless the USA folds up the tent and calls it a day we will ALWAYS be looked upon to be a leader and protector of the free.
How far we’ve come from “bare any burden, pay any price…”
^This.
True that!
WW3 is inevitable under current foreign policy as well. Right now we are so weak and limp wristed that we might as well be isolationist. Actually what we are now is worse than isolationist I believe, we are slaves to a corrupt do nothing UN and afraid of our own shadow.
On the Israel front…I got to say I think the best thing that could happen to them is us get out of the way. Think about it. The only thing that has stopped Israel from kicking the dog crap out of Iran and their cohorts is us. We’re the leash around their neck. I just don’t view this as much of a factor since their enemies don’t fear us anyway, we really aren’t doing Israel any favors but are doing them some harm.
Point being we would be exchanging crap, damaging foreign policy for crap, damaging foreign policy. Its an even trade. However we would have a significant upgrade in domestic policy and as it stands now if we don’t get our own house in order than our foreign policy won’t matter anyway.
Not asking if they would be succesful but what would your answer here be:
Do you honestly believe Newt or Mitt will tackle any real issues or attempt real reform?
Do you believe Ron Paul would tackle any real issues or attempt any real reform?
It is my belief Paul is the only one with the cojones to actually try and fix things and not just pay them lip service. I just can’t make myself vote for more of the same anymore. The futility of it all exhaust me.
Dr. Paul is an anti-semitic Wilsonian Progressive piece of garbage who should have been shamed out of public office decades ago. This whole “he’s a reformer” crap can be stacked against his very lengthy record of feeding at the Federal trough, and the “he’s got the Youth vote” crap is just as illusory as the smoke dragons said voting block see when they pass the bong around. It is hard to avoid casting aspersions here, but anyone who seriously considers voting for this douchebag is someone whom I do not take serious as an informed voter. I am all for blowing up the GOP establishment, but this particular petard would indeed hoist us all.
Assuming that Dr. Paul is a sane rational individual, which based on the evidence I have seen is debatable he makes excellent points about getting the budget under control. Unfortunately his attitude about foreign policy is to be charitable…INSANE.
If the rest of the world is aflame we are in the hurt locker as well. Unfortunately these aren’t the 1800′s and we are invested and involved in the world economy and require a stable world to prosper ourselves. Not to mention that troubles around the world cause a lot of people to seek refuge in America. It’s nice to say we shouldn’t have done this or that 30-40 years ago…but that is a moot argument. Fact of the matter is we did do things and we have a resposibility to follow through on promises made. That is unless you don’t care about crap like that.
Additionally social programs are the problem with the federal budget, not foreign aid, not the defense budget…its MEDICADE, SS and WELFARE. Why can’t people get this through their heads?
Funny you should mention budget slashing: http://z6.co.uk/moresuckage
I will make no such assumptions, as the adage “even a stopped clock is right twice a day” come to mind. There are plenty of people in asylums who can be perfectly lucid and insightful on any given topic…but since they are batshit insane we don’t give them leave to go. Would that Dr. Paul could join them.
There may be fat in the military that could be trimmed, but it for damn sure isn’t to be found in our combat forces and equipment! We go through this every generation—we neuter our military and have to play catch-up when the next inevitable domino falls.
+ Kristallnacht
Mitt or Newt might continue our slow decline but Ron Paul will, with his foreign policy, not only accelerate it but probably cause World War 3.
When I hear Ron Paul spouting Foreign Policy I am reminded of what a line for the Fellowship of the Ring by an elf that Frodo and Sam came across: “You can fence yourselves in but you cannot fence the world out.”
So you’re planning to abandon the GOP’s candidate and vote for the third-party radical instead. Because that worked out so well for us in ’92, didn’t it?
WHOOP!!
Well said,Brandon..saw the GOP establishment’s horns off.Ron Paul is the only game changer in this race.
He is a game changer Scott… a loser. Anyone wanting to ensure American decline in the near future (and maybe into the long term) can do one of three things… vote for Obama, vote for Ron Paul, or not vote in the Fall election who might otherwise vote for the GOP.
Or vote for a Barbie Doll like Mitt
Ron Paul has the most big government experience of anyone in the race… so?
The echo of Obama
Hardly. He’s vastly different from Obama. Doing things on a state level is not anywhere near the same thing as stretching that over 50 states. It’s called federalism… and Romney believes in it so far as I can tell.
And at the very least, he has an actual career, his own business and a governship under his belt. A wealth of experience compared to what we currently have.
And a side note to Stephanie… please notice how Scott and I have a back and forth without name calling…. it’s called civilized debate… you should try it.
Only name I call Floyd is Floyd!
Floyd what concerns me most about Mitt and Newt is not just that I don’t hear them putting forward solutions to problems, they aren’t even talking about the problems. The political class is like a drunk refusing to admit their is a problem – step one is denail. Paul and Perry were the only two calling Social Security what it is and of course Perry is out. Everyone else seems to still be under the impression that everything is fine and we can just kick the can down the road a while longer but we’re $15 trillion in debt and the GOP is letting Obama sucker them into this class warfare crap rather than address the issues.
Even if Paul can’t change the game, he can at least start the conversation about changing the rules.
Veruckt… I agree re Social Security… but when World War 3 starts Social Security will be a true backburner issue. I believe Ron Paul’s foreign policy will speed up the process towards a World War.
Libertarianism is a utopian vision. Most, if not all, utopianism is dangerous in addition to being unrealistic.
And before Scott sets in (:-) ) — orthodox Christianity is NOT utopian because it doesn’t largely teach the perfectibility of mankind or that Heaven is earthly (there are exceptions of course)/
Any philosophy taken to an extreme is utopian, unrealistic, and dangerous. Assigning that notion to Libertarianism as though it is somehow unique in that is misleading.
Paul is definitely not my ideal candidate and frankly isn’t Presidential material. The only one who is Presidential material is Mitt. Take a look at my original post and see what I few Paul as – he is the guy who will open the door for other Libertarians in the future. I think Rand will succeed where his father failed. Rand is a Libertarian but his views are tempered with realism.
I agree about Rand.
Vote for Vermin Supreme, get a free pony!
+Rubber boots for hats
I’ll take you to task for one thing you said earlier,Floyd.How did “isolationism” cause the Second World War? I was under the impression that Germany started that…should we have had hundreds of thousands of Americans troops posted in Europe in the ’30s?
He may be referring to the nations tearing Germany down and then just folding up shop and heading home. The isolationism did cause us as well as the League of Nations to ignore Germany’s repeated violations of the Treaty of Versailles which of course allowed Germany to rebuild their military.
“Cause” was an overstatement on my part, but it was clearly a part. Refusal to do anything about Hitler’s aggressive moves in the late 1930s clearly emboldened him and had dire consequences.
If one sees a man being attacked and refuses to help him then he “causes” in some part his ultimate demise. That’s a pretty ancient principle.
Actually “cause” is the appropriate word, I don’t ever really hear this said much about the consequences of Paul’s foreign policy but the reason we have troops here and there, including Europe is reach. We don’t know where trouble might brew, so you have to have some forward bases to get a jump on any issue.
Most importantly, the US military protects worldwide trade. Even the threat of military action can prevent a country from taking military action against trade routes, which was very common before the age of Americanism. Hence, the lack of that stabilizing power “caused” world wars in the sense that no one was there to help prevent them. If we follow Paul’s foreign policy, the ability to trade and have economic partnerships will lessen and when two countries come into conflict, without economic pressure to bring to bear, their only choice will be violence.
I know people generally think of sanctions as rather meek responses but it is an alternative to military action. The US, despite how our enemies try to make us look weak and stupid, protects some of the most important ground in the history of mankind, the middle ground. We have ultimately acted against our own short term interests for the long term dividends of peaceful economic activity. Without our military’s presence to safeguard this neutral territory (or worse a power such as China who has no inclination to protect anything but its own interests steps in) the available options for countries to deal peaceably with one another are drastically reduced.
This is what “caused” WW1 and 2 and pretty much every major conflict in the world. I sympathize greatly with libertarians on domestic issues and understand why they think the way they do about foreign policy, but they are wrong. Period.
He said “helped cause” not caused. Selective reading, almost the same as the people who want to say that the US caused the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor because we put an embargo on them when they invaded China.
“Only the dead have seen the end to war.”
“If you want peace, prepare for war.”
And I’m not saying that Romney or Gingrich are the best we have to offer… they’re a damn sight better than Paul I think.
FDR could say what he wanted to,but the Rhine was not America’s front line..it was the front line of France and the United Kingdom.
You’re right—it wasn’t…right up until Dec. 8, 1941. Once Hitler declared war against us, the frontline was indeed established.
Scott, (& Veruckt) you need to watch Capra’s Why We Fight Series Prelude to War It is pro-democratic propaganda, dated and defferential to our allies at the time, but it is dead on about isolationism. World War II began September 19, 1931, with Japan’s invasion of Manchuria. Nobody wanted to go to war to stop it, but if they had, then World War II would have been far smaller and shorter.
Don’t misunderstand me Goatherd. I know isolationism is stupid and simply will not work in a modern world. I detest Paul’s foreign policy. To me he is a means to an end – I know he will not win the primary but I am hoping a strong performance from him will show other would be Libertarian politicians that they can win in the GOP. My ultimate hope is that Libertarians will push out the old guard Republicans and our nation will finally have a fighting chance at addressing real issues.
I know you’re laying down a sacrifice, in the hope, it will advance the cause. Noble thought. We, conservative republicians also wish to drive out the old guard. Obama’s 100 MPH or McCain’s 50 MPH over the cliff wasn’t much of a choice. Where’s Reagan when we need him, again? Who of the four is most like Ronald Reagan?
Most like Reagan. Geez. None of the above. Mitt is too weak and would bend in a slight breeze, Newt is too much a politician and completely not trust worthy, Santorum is too concerned with social issues as opposed to things the government actually should be involved in, and Paul’s foreign policy is the opposite of Reagan’s. Reagan was a master at foreign policy. See, Reagan was the kind of Libertarian I think a strong performance from Paul opens the door for again…and yes Reagan was an admitted Libertarian just not a zealot like Ron Paul. I see a lot of Reagan in Rand Paul though.
I don’t see the libertarian in Reagan, that you do. To me, he was a conservative in that he thought the constitution meant what it plainly says. There was a war on drugs and alot of extra-constitutional activities going on, but the man spoke well on his principles, even when not always meeting them. I’m still leaning Newt 1, Santorum 2, Romney 3, Paul 4.
People beliefs in what Libertarians are is part of the issue. We have a branding issue, if you will. The majority of us are extremely well reasoned and know how to balance our beliefs against the weight of reality (Rufus and I being two examples on the boards here). However the thing most associate us with is the fringe, borderline anarchist sect of Libertarianism. This would be your isolationist, people who want all drugs legalized, etc. True Libertarians beliefs are simple – the government should not be involved in anything beyond it’s Constitutionally delegated powers. This is the same thing Conservatives say as well but they are often selective in this and make lots of exceptions by delving into moral policing and feels good policies to “help” the poor etc (these policies usually just shackle them).
Reagan was a true Libertarian in that he opposed social (in)security, Medicare, unemplyoment insurance, etc. You are considered a pariah among Conservatives to speak against these things because they are feel good policies.
Then we need to start a new movement to seperate us from the rabbles, and you called it, “The Pariah Party”.
More like suicide squeeze.
Made my point,Goozer.Hitler declared war against us.
Well,we did have a quasi-war with Germany in the North Atlantic…provoked by FDR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7jBbCQwJ0g
Provoked by FDR? Unrestricted submarine warfare had been outlawed by the London Naval Treaty signed on April 22, 1930. Unrestricted submarine warfare is a type of naval warfare in which submarines sink merchantmen without warning, as opposed to attacks per prize rules (commonly known as “cruiser rules”). Cruiser rules demand submarines surface and search merchantmen, and place crews in “a place of safety” (for which lifeboats did not qualify, except under particular circumstances) before sinking them, unless the ship showed “persistent refusal to stop…or active resistance to visit or search”. Germany was not even permitted to have submarines by the treaty of Versilles. FDR’s shoot on sight order in April 1941 was in response to numerous sinkings of american flagged vessels.
Am I the only person who thinks rules in warfare are stupid? We’re the only people who follow them and all it does is tie our hands.
Well once the bad guys break the rules, it’s very easy to then dismiss the rules. We did it in WWII, but seem to have difficulty with the idea now.
I suppose it depends on what kind of rules you are talking about. As someone who was a professional Soldier, the rules we put in place are to separate us from the animals we fight…they actually make our job easier in some respects. Although like most things they can be carried too far.
If you are talking about the rules prior to WWII regulating the sizes of ships navies, etc…yeah pretty naive.
Agreed, but nothing bothers me more than the hand wringing on our side when one of own goes a little too far. Like urinating on the dead enemy, yes bad taste. Does anyone remember the contractors killed in Iraq, their bodies burned and hung up on a bridge as trophies? If I was Bush then, I would have had the air force buzz that place every hour on the hour as loud as possible, with a sonic boom on the first pass, breaking every window in that crap hole. A little tit for tat sends a clear message to the enemy.
You assume that everyone there is an enemy. If you do what you propose everyone soon would be. What feels good, is not always the best course of action.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but if you’ll excuse the expression it pisses me off when Marines desecrate the dead because they know it’s wrong and they cant control themselves enough not to do it. It’s not OK…using the excuse that our enemies are animals and are doing it, is not valid. That excuse didn’t work when you were in school and all your friends were doing something stupid, why is that excuse any better when applied to this?
No assumption. We can drop leaflets explaining it if you like. “The enemy in your midst has murdered unarmed civilian contractors and desecrated their bodies. Our response is to instill fear into our shared enemy, rest assured, we will kill those who did this. Join us in driving out and destroying the cowardly murders from your home. When justice is served, we will reward our friends. George Bush”
You do know that we went in there eventually and virtually destroyed that city, right? I know because I was there. It may not have happened in a time-line that suited most of us, but I can assure you it most definitely happened.
My point was the emotional response that most of us on the INTERNET crave and call for is sometimes counterproductive to the overall effort. As much as it would make everyone feel great that we went in there and got those bastaards, THAT is precisely the response that the people who did it want to provoke.
What eventually turned the tide in Iraq wasn’t us killing all the bad guys it was Iraqis deciding they they would rather fight with us against the bad guys. It was the kind of thing that you proposed that made it take longer, and gave AQI ammo in their fight to the the Iraqis on their side. This kind of war isn’t particularly easy.
And I’m glad we did what we did. If I was Bush at the time, I would have talked out of my response by my military advisors and we would have done what was done. Still, there is something emotionally satisfying about sonic booms over that hell hole. S, pardon my fantasy.
^This, again.
The “This, again.” was for Outlaw…
And you’re right about the marines doing it, shows poor judgement doing it. And it shows pure idiocy videoing the act, as well, it shows no discernment what so ever uploadinging it to youtube. Deserve what they get!
Newt kind of reminds me of Barney Stinson’s Vickie Mendoza Diagonal of the Hot-Crazy Scale.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJxpQ8_HF74
Ron Paul is in the Shelly Gilespie Zone
Okay, that was me, using my other email address.
So, where does everyone stand regarding the election?
Romney
Gingrich
Santorum
Paul
?
I think I am leaning to Romney but the Alabama primary is still a while away (March 13).
I think Veruckt’s description of Santorum is way off base, I would happily pull the lever for him. Maryland’s primary isn’t until April 3rd so I doubt the contest will still be ongoing. That said, I just don’t see Santorum as having a realistic chance, so I’m leaning Gingrich right now.
If he’s still on the ballot by the time the Ohio primary rolls around, I’ll vote for Santorum, too.
2 Questions I want Asked:
Will you repeal Obamacare?
And to Ron Paul: “How will you deal with Somalian Piracy?”
Minor foreign policy issue in the grand scheme of things but his answer would say loads about him.
I would also like the candidates to be asked questions concerning the Drug War in Mexico.
Dr. Paul would tell you that its the Mexicans problem and if we legalized the stuff all the scrapping and fighting would stop because there wouldn’t be so much money in it.
Newt would say we have to help our neighbors south of the border in some sort of non commital answer. Mitt would tell us how he visited there while doing his Mormon mission.
There, saved you the trouble of having to watch a debate or anything like it.
IMO we need to help the Mexicans however we can to get this violence under control. There was a precedent set for going in there preemptively back around the turn of the previous century…but none of the current players D or R would have the cajones to do that. Personally I think that is the only way any of that mess will ever get cleared up.
You left out Santorum!
He deserves to be left out. I know I seem down on Santorum but to me he is the male Michelle Bachman. He is someone trying to capitalize on the emotions of the Tea Party. He spends more time blurting out things like “I’m a true Conservative” than he does putting forth any kind of substance. It drives me nuts when the candidates get into a pissing contest over who is more Conservative without actually telling us anything they would do differently. Its a childish sort of oneupmanship.
V, did you catch any of the earlier debates? It seems to me there was more substance in the early ones. The latest ones have been too much about how my friend so and so is not good because blah blah. Which is where Bachman went and stayed. Santorum may be good, but I’m having a hard time with his presentation, he strikes me as a boy scout. Idealism untested in the real world. If he just had a scar, or something, I could dismiss the goody-two-shoes presentation.
Some one needs to say it: “We got us the Josey Wales…..”
Well JimmyC, I think you need to change your avatar after that big juicy diuretic turd that was the Chuck series final.